SLFand Proud,
perhaps better keep it that way I said tends to and the day it doesn't, my response to any control malfunctions will be a whole lot more instinctive/rational than having to fumble around on the overhead panel switching sh1t off. But, your understanding of this may not be as highly developed of course, if you have never been handed an out of control aircraft, & been expected to sort it out fairly rapidly, you can be excused for that.
It is not massively advanced, nor modern, to have commercial aircraft , in the year 2012, performing potentially lethal manouveres, requiring that you disconnect most of the "raison d' etre " to control them. . . . do you not see a contradiction here ?
To be honest, that was so incoherent it's difficult to see what your point is, let alone determine contradictions; I presume English is your second language though, so I shall soldier on regardless with apologies if I've misunderstood you.
You did indeed say 'tends to'. But this discussion is not about what aircraft - of any type - 'tend' to do; it's a discussion about what a particular type does with multiple equipment failures - 'tendency' is irrelevant. You suggested in your post that should the aircraft you are piloting ever cease to do what it 'tends to' you would be out of your depth.
You rather underline it by claiming in the event it does happen, your response will be both instinctive and rational. Which is pretty much by definition impossible. Either you use your instinct - which in most cases of aircraft upset is likely wrong (see pilots stalling planes passim,) or you rationally evaluate the situation. If you are terrified of having to rationally evaluate a situation - "fumble around on the overhead panel switching sh1t off" suggests someone liable to 'intuitive' panic responses rather than rational action - then you should consider whether a career in the arts may be more suitable.